Not a roll call, but it does tell the two Republicans that voted against it. Can you people in Missouri say "recall"?

Tirod

September 12, 2013, 12:13 PM

It's not worth the effort. The bill had serious flaws. You can't send the Sheriff out when the BATF is making a valid arrest.

The bill served it's political purpose. What you see are responsible Republicans not wanting to load the Attorney General with a Federal lawsuit, especially when he spelled out the critical areas that it would fail in court. Like it or not, we don't pass bad laws, and then claim we can fix it later in the next session.

The other party does that, we heard it from a certain NY governor, I believe. What NY got fixed was what they wanted, to get it strengthened from a legal challenge. Let them blow the taxpayer's money in court for years. We don't need it.

It was an In Your Face response to the government gun grab, not really a big problem in this state. I'm not holding it against a rep if he voted against it. Now, the tax decrease, that's a much bigger issue. Like was said in the paper today, we are coming back next session, and the opposition will get to see things again - even more carefully spelled out. Their objections won't exist in the next legislation.

RussellC

September 12, 2013, 12:39 PM

It's not worth the effort. The bill had serious flaws. You can't send the Sheriff out when the BATF is making a valid arrest.

The bill served it's political purpose. What you see are responsible Republicans not wanting to load the Attorney General with a Federal lawsuit, especially when he spelled out the critical areas that it would fail in court. Like it or not, we don't pass bad laws, and then claim we can fix it later in the next session.

The other party does that, we heard it from a certain NY governor, I believe. What NY got fixed was what they wanted, to get it strengthened from a legal challenge. Let them blow the taxpayer's money in court for years. We don't need it.

It was an In Your Face response to the government gun grab, not really a big problem in this state. I'm not holding it against a rep if he voted against it. Now, the tax decrease, that's a much bigger issue. Like was said in the paper today, we are coming back next session, and the opposition will get to see things again - even more carefully spelled out. Their objections won't exist in the next legislation.
Good summation, I see nothing to recall.

Russellc

ChaoSS

September 15, 2013, 10:03 PM

You can't send the Sheriff out when the BATF is making a valid arrest.

Yes, yes you can. There are a number of sheriffs around the country who would be willing to stand up to federal tyranny and say no, you can't enforce illegal laws. Doing this sort of thing at the state and county level is exactly what needs to happen to put the feds back on their short leash.

Many people like to spout off about how the second amendment exists to ward off government tyranny, but a bunch of guys who are never willing to organize or use those guns to that purpose will never ward off anything. A good leader in the form of a sheriff could raise a militia purposed to do exactly what the second amendment intended, and if it happened with the blessing of the state, all the better. This is the sort of thing that could force the feds to back off, without having to resort to all out civil war with a bunch of disjointed, unorganized lone wolves trying to overthrow the government.